
- •Contents
- •Series Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Purposes and Uses of Achievement Tests
- •Diagnosing Achievement
- •Identifying Processes
- •Analyzing Errors
- •Making Placement Decisions and Planning Programs
- •Measuring Academic Progress
- •Evaluating Interventions or Programs
- •Conducting Research
- •Screening
- •Selecting an Achievement Test
- •Administering Standardized Achievement Tests
- •Testing Environment
- •Establishing Rapport
- •History and Development
- •Changes From KTEA-II to KTEA-3
- •Subtests
- •Mapping KTEA-3 to Common Core State Standards
- •Standardization and Psychometric Properties of the KTEA-3
- •Standardization
- •Reliability
- •Validity
- •Overview of the KTEA-3 Brief Form
- •Brief Form Standardization and Technical Characteristics
- •How to Administer the KTEA-3
- •Starting and Discontinuing Subtests
- •Sample, Teaching, and Practice Items
- •Recording Responses
- •Timing
- •Queries and Prompts
- •Subtest-by-Subtest Notes on Administration
- •How to Score the KTEA-3
- •Types of Scores
- •Subtest-by-Subtest Scoring Keys
- •How to Interpret the KTEA-3
- •Introduction to Interpretation
- •Step 1: Interpret the Academic Skills Battery (ASB) Composite
- •Step 2: Interpret Other Composite Scores and Subtest Scores
- •Subtest Floors and Ceilings
- •Interpretation of Composites
- •Clinical Analysis of Errors
- •Qualitative Observations
- •Using the KTEA-3 Across Multiple Administrations
- •Repeated Administrations of the Same Form
- •Administering Alternate Forms
- •Using the KTEA-3 Brief Form
- •Progress Monitoring
- •Screening for a Comprehensive Evaluation
- •KTEA-3 Score Reports
- •History and Development
- •Changes From WIAT-II to WIAT-III
- •Age Range
- •New and Modified Subtests
- •Composites
- •Administration and Scoring Rules
- •Skills Analysis
- •Intervention Goal Statements
- •New Analyses
- •New Scores
- •Validity Studies
- •Materials
- •Scoring and Reporting
- •Description of the WIAT-III
- •Subtests With Component Scores
- •Mapping WIAT-III to Common Core State Standards
- •Standardization and Psychometric Properties of the WIAT-III
- •Standardization
- •Reliability
- •Validity
- •Starting and Discontinuing Subtests
- •Sample, Teaching, and Practice Items
- •Recording Responses
- •Timing
- •Queries and Prompts
- •Subtest-by-Subtest Notes on Administration
- •How to Score the WIAT-III
- •Types of Scores
- •Score Reports
- •Subtest-by-Subtest Scoring Keys
- •Listening Comprehension
- •Early Reading Skills
- •Reading Comprehension
- •Sentence Composition
- •Word Reading and Pseudoword Decoding
- •Essay Composition
- •Numerical Operations
- •Oral Expression
- •Oral Reading Fluency
- •Spelling
- •Math Fluency—Addition, Subtraction, and Multiplication
- •Introduction to Interpretation
- •Step 1: Interpret the Composite Scores
- •Subtest Floors and Ceilings
- •Skills Analysis
- •Intervention Goal Statements
- •Qualitative Data
- •Using the WIAT-III Across Multiple Administrations
- •Linking Studies
- •Overview of the WISC-V, WISC-V Integrated, and KABC-II
- •Qualitative/Behavioral Analyses of Assessment Results
- •Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities
- •Interpretation and Use of Three New Composite Scores
- •Accommodations for Visual, Hearing, and Motor Impairments
- •Ongoing Research on Gender Differences in Writing and the Utility of Error Analysis
- •Female Advantage in Writing on KTEA-II Brief and Comprehensive Forms
- •Strengths and Weaknesses of the KTEA-3
- •Assets of the KTEA-3
- •Test Development
- •Two Forms
- •Standardization
- •Reliability and Validity
- •Administration and Scoring
- •Interpretation
- •Phonological Processing
- •KTEA-3 Flash Drive
- •Limitations of the KTEA-3
- •Test Development
- •Standardization
- •Reliability and Validity
- •Administration and Scoring
- •Test Items
- •Interpretation
- •Final Comment
- •Strengths and Weaknesses of the WIAT-III
- •Assets of the WIAT-III
- •Test Development
- •Normative Sample
- •Reliability and Validity
- •Administration and Scoring
- •Interpretation
- •Better Listening Comprehension Measure
- •Technical Manual
- •Limitations of the WIAT-III
- •Floor and Ceiling
- •Test Coverage
- •Poor Instructions for Scoring Certain Tasks
- •Item Scoring
- •Audio Recorder
- •Final Comment
- •Content Coverage of the KTEA-3 and WIAT-III
- •Case Report 1: Jenna
- •Reason for Evaluation
- •Background Information
- •Behavioral Observations
- •Assessment Procedures and Tests Administered
- •Test Results
- •Neuropsychological Implications and Diagnostic Impressions
- •Recommendations
- •Psychometric Summary for Jenna
- •Case Report 2: Oscar
- •Reason for Evaluation
- •Background Information
- •Behavioral Observations
- •Assessment Procedures and Tests Administered
- •Test Results
- •Diagnostic Summary
- •Recommendations
- •Resources
- •Psychometric Summary for Oscar
- •Case Report 3: Rob
- •Purpose of the Evaluation
- •History and Background
- •Behavioral Observations
- •Assessment Procedures and Tests Administered
- •Results
- •Summary and Diagnostic Impressions
- •Recommendations
- •Psychometric Summary for Rob
- •Q-interactive Versus Q-global
- •Equivalency Studies
- •Essential Features of Q-interactive
- •Key Terminology
- •Central Website
- •Assess Application
- •References
- •Annotated Bibliography
- •About the Authors
- •About the Digital Resources
- •Index

374 ESSENTIALS OF KTEA™-3 AND WIAT®-III ASSESSMENT
Math Fluency (standard score of 89; 23rd percentile), Writing Fluency (standard score of 72; 3rd percentile), and Silent Reading Fluency standard score of 83 (13th percentile). In contrast, his ability to read individual real words aloud was at a level commensurate with other students his age (Decoding Fluency standard score of 95; 37th percentile).
When comparing Rob’s performance on the simple fluency tests with his performance on the more complex untimed tests, he scores significantly lower under timed conditions. These di erences range from 38 points in writing (over 2 standard deviations), 33 points in math (over 2 standard deviations), and 15 points in reading (1 standard deviation). It should be noted that Rob’s decoding fluency versus his regular decoding skills did not show significant variability. When Rob’s Fluency Composite is compared with his overall cognitive abilities, there are also significant di erences.
Rob was also administered the Comprehension subtest of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test under standard and extended timed conditions. Rob’s performance was in
the 22nd percentile (standard time) and in the 35th percentile (extended time). He
111111111
did not complete the test under either condition. In the standard administration, he only finished four passages. With extended time, he completed six out of the seven passages. Thus, even with 50% extra time, he was unable to finish.
Social, Emotional, and Executive Functioning
Emotionally and behaviorally, Rob presented during the evaluation as a sweet, compliant young man who was willing to do his best. He was able to sustain his attention for long periods of time in this one-on-one interaction; however, it took him a long time to complete most of the tasks. Based on parent report, including rating scales such as the BASC-2 and the BRIEF, Rob is not currently exhibiting any significant emotional or behavioral symptoms, or executive dysfunction.
Summary and Diagnostic Impressions
Specific Learning Disorder (DSM-V 315) with impairments in Reading (Reading Fluency) and Mathematics (Fluent Calculation)
Dysgraphia (ICD-9-CM 781.3)
Overall average cognitive abilities with highly variable skills
Normative strength in nonverbal problem-solving (upper extreme) Normative weaknesses in processing speed and visual-motor integra-
tion (low)
Personal strength in verbal knowledge (above average)
Personal weaknesses in memory and associative learning (average)

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 375
Overall academic functioning all within average to above average range Normative weaknesses in academic fluency (contextual reading, writing,
math)
Based on the current evaluation, Rob’s cognitive abilities are not uniformly developed. He exhibits lower average memory and learning skills (personal weakness for him), average visual processing skills (negatively impacted by timed conditions), above average verbal knowledge, and upper extreme nonverbal problem solving skills. Rob demonstrates significant weakness in his visual-motor integration skills and his processing speed skills (both deficits). In fact, he appears slower in his processing of information, both input and output, which translates into his taking longer to respond.
Rob’s academic skills vary from above average/superior to low. Most of his reading skills are average compared to same-grade peers, as are his written expression and listening comprehension skills. His math skills are above average/superior. However, Rob has significant deficits in his fluency (the speed with which he is able to encode, process, and respond to simple reading, writing and even math questions). These deficits are most notable when coupled with the need for quick writing; however, they also significantly impact his basic reading understanding and math when expected to work quickly.
Rob’s academic functioning is significantly lower than his cognitive abili- 22222222111111111 ties. He has a processing deficit clearly related to his academic concerns (processing speed and fluency). Thus, he meets criteria for a Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in all areas (reading, writing, math) that are a ected by time constraints. He also
meets criteria for the diagnosis of dysgraphia (ICD-9-CM). Dysgraphia is the condition of impaired letter writing by hand, that is, disabled handwriting. Impaired handwriting can interfere with learning to spell words in writing and speed of writing text.
Recommendations
Based on Rob’s specific deficits in processing speed and visual-motor integration, which a ect his fluency in writing, reading, and math, the following recommendations have been made:
1.Rob has significant deficits with his visual-motor integration that a ect his handwriting, making it slow and laborious. In addition, it is often di cult to read his handwriting. It is strongly recommended that he learn keyboarding/typing skills so that he can complete in-class writing

376 ESSENTIALS OF KTEA™-3 AND WIAT®-III ASSESSMENT
assignments and exams via computer. Summer is a good time for him to practice keyboarding skills.
2.Until Rob becomes proficient with typing, he and his family may want to investigate dictation apps for his computer to help with longer written assignments at home (such as papers). Summer time is a good time to explore various programs to determine which ones Rob likes better.
3.It is recommended that Rob begin receiving educational services in the form of accommodations via his school’s Learning Center. Based on his current diagnosis of specific learning disorder and dysgraphia and the accompanying processing speed and fluency deficits, the following are recommended:
(a)Rob will need to have extra time to complete all exams and in-class assignments (up to double extra time). He should be taking exams in a separate place from the rest of the class so that he is not disturbed when others complete their work before him.
(b)Rob should be given a copy of the teacher’s lessons and notes (or a peer note taker) for each class to lessen the requirements for him to quickly copy notes from the board or lectures. He may also want to record the lectures to review.
(c)Rob’s counselor may be able to assist him in applying for special accommodations for standardized testing (e.g., SAT), which he will definitely require. He may need up to double111111111 time. In addition, he should mark his answers directly on the test booklet and not be required to transfer answers onto the scantron.
(d)When taking exams requiring longer handwritten responses such as essays or short paragraphs, Rob should be allowed to use a laptop or iPad.
Debra Y. Broadbooks, PhD Licensed Psychologist
Psychometric Summary for Rob
Table 6.25 Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children–Second Edition (KABC-II, CHC Model)
|
Standard |
90% |
|
Scale |
Score/Scaled |
Confidence |
Percentile |
Score |
Interval |
Rank |
|
|
|
|
|
Sequential/Gsm |
91 |
83–99 |
27 |
Number Recall |
8 |
|
25 |
Word Order |
9 |
|
37 |
Simultaneous/Gv |
100 |
92–108 |
50 |
Rover |
11 |
|
63 |
Block Counting |
9 |
|
37 |
|
|
|
|

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 377
Table 6.25 (Continued)
|
|
Standard |
90% |
|
|
|
Scale |
Score/Scaled |
Confidence |
Percentile |
|||
|
Score |
Interval |
Rank |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Learning/Glr |
|
94 |
88–100 |
34 |
||
Atlantis |
|
10 |
|
50 |
||
Rebus |
|
8 |
|
25 |
||
Planning/Gf |
|
132 |
119–139 |
98 |
||
Story Completion* |
|
13 |
|
84 |
||
Pattern Reasoning* |
|
17 |
|
99 |
||
Knowledge/Gc |
|
115 |
107–121 |
84 |
||
Verbal Knowledge |
|
14 |
|
91 |
||
Riddles |
|
12 |
|
75 |
||
Fluid-Crystallized |
|
107 |
103–111 |
68 |
||
Index (FCI) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
*Note: Scored without time points. |
|
|
|
|||
|
Table 6.26 Beery Buktenica Developmental Test of |
|||||
|
Visual Motor Integration |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard |
90% Confidence |
Percentile |
||
|
Index |
Score |
111111111 |
Interval |
Rank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beery VMI |
63 |
|
— |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 6.27 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V, Selected Subtests)
|
Standard |
90% |
|
Index/Subtest |
Score/Scaled |
Confidence |
Percentile |
Score |
Interval |
Rank |
|
|
|
|
|
Processing Speed Index (PSI) |
56 |
51–66 |
0.2 |
Coding |
1 |
|
0.1 |
Symbol Search |
4 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
Table 6.28 Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3, Form B)
|
Standard Score |
90% Confidence |
Percentile |
Composite/Subtest |
(age-based) |
Interval |
Rank |
|
|
|
|
Reading Composite |
101 |
96–106 |
53 |
Letter & Word Recognition |
104 |
99–109 |
61 |
Reading Comprehension |
98 |
90–106 |
45 |
Silent Reading Fluency |
83 |
72–94 |
13 |
(continued)

378 ESSENTIALS OF KTEA™-3 AND WIAT®-III ASSESSMENT
Table 6.28 (Continued)
|
|
Standard Score |
90% Confidence |
Percentile |
Composite/Subtest |
(age-based) |
Interval |
Rank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mathematics Composite |
121 |
117–125 |
92 |
|
Math Concepts & Applications |
117 |
112–122 |
87 |
|
Math Computation |
122 |
117–127 |
93 |
|
Math Fluency |
89 |
82–96 |
23 |
|
Written Language Composite |
— |
— |
— |
|
Written Expression |
110 |
99–121 |
75 |
|
Writing Fluency |
72 |
59–85 |
3 |
|
Comprehension Composite |
93 |
86–100 |
32 |
|
Listening Comprehension |
90 |
80–100 |
25 |
|
Reading Comprehension |
98 |
90–106 |
45 |
|
Reading Fluency Composite |
89 |
83–95 |
23 |
|
Word Recognition Fluency |
96 |
88–104 |
39 |
|
Decoding Fluency |
95 |
85–105 |
37 |
|
Academic Fluency |
80 |
73–87 |
9 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Table 6.29 Nelson Denny Reading Test |
|
||
|
|
111111111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtest |
|
Percentile Rank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehension and Rate, standard time |
22 |
|
|
|
Comprehension and Rate, extended time |
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|